Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26474183›Full record

Trial reportPloS one2015

Pain Intensity Recognition Rates via Biopotential Feature Patterns with Support Vector Machines.

Sascha Gruss, Roi Treister, Philipp Werner, Harald C Traue, Stephen Crawcour, Adriano Andrade, Steffen Walter

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in PloS one, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 46 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
46citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

46 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Review
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The need for epistemic humility in AI-assisted pain assessment.Medicine, health care, and philosophy · 2025
    Article
  7. Review
  8. Review
  9. Review
  10. Applications of Artificial Intelligence in Pain Medicine.Current pain and headache reports · 2024
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

Sascha GrussUniversity of Ulm, Medical Psychology, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Ulm, Germany.
Roi TreisterMassachusetts General Hospital & Harvard Medical School, Department of Neurology, Nerve Injury Unit, Boston, Massachusetts, United States of America.
Philipp WernerOtto-von-Guericke-Universität Magdeburg, Institute for Information Technology and Communications, Magdeburg, Germany.
Harald C TraueUniversity of Ulm, Medical Psychology, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Ulm, Germany.
Stephen CrawcourUniversity of Technology Dresden, Department of Clinical Psychology and Psychotherapy, Dresden, Germany.
Adriano AndradeFederal University of Uberlândia, Biomedical Engineering Laboratory (BioLab), Uberlândia, Brazil.
Steffen WalterUniversity of Ulm, Medical Psychology, Department of Psychosomatic Medicine and Psychotherapy, Ulm, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundThe clinically used methods of pain diagnosis do not allow for objective and robust measurement, and physicians must rely on the patient's report on the pain sensation. Verbal scales, visual analog scales (VAS) or numeric rating scales (NRS) count among the most common tools, which are restricted to patients with normal mental abilities. There also exist instruments for pain assessment in people with verbal and / or cognitive impairments and instruments for pain assessment in people who are sedated and automated ventilated. However, all these diagnostic methods either have limited reliability and validity or are very time-consuming. In contrast, biopotentials can be automatically analyzed with machine learning algorithms to provide a surrogate measure of pain intensity.

methodsIn this context, we created a database of biopotentials to advance an automated pain recognition system, determine its theoretical testing quality, and optimize its performance. Eighty-five participants were subjected to painful heat stimuli (baseline, pain threshold, two intermediate thresholds, and pain tolerance threshold) under controlled conditions and the signals of electromyography, skin conductance level, and electrocardiography were collected. A total of 159 features were extracted from the mathematical groupings of amplitude, frequency, stationarity, entropy, linearity, variability, and similarity.

resultsWe achieved classification rates of 90.94% for baseline vs. pain tolerance threshold and 79.29% for baseline vs. pain threshold. The most selected pain features stemmed from the amplitude and similarity group and were derived from facial electromyography.

conclusionThe machine learning measurement of pain in patients could provide valuable information for a clinical team and thus support the treatment assessment.

Indexed as

PainSignal Processing, Computer-AssistedSupport Vector MachineAdolescentAdultAgedElectromyographyFemaleHumansMaleMiddle AgedPain Measurement

Identifiers

PMID26474183
PMCPMC4608770

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.